http://www.omsphoto.com/users/chazc/ChargerBk.jpg

>>

http://forums.autoweek.com/servlet/JiveSer...609/chrager.JPG

This post has been edited by StaticKnotX: Dec 29, 2004 - 10:38 PM

Ugly. The one is just a red photoshop.

why must all new cars be four door

i really wish my wrx was two door

i think that will be hot with the right motor

That sooooo doesnt do the Charger justice. omg ewwww.

That is no more a charger then the "new GTO" was a gto, It pisses me off when thay take a cool musele car from the past and make a horrible "new model" of it, and WHY do they have to make it a twin to there other cars styles, what happen to originality?

-creis+Dec 30, 2004 - 1:33 AM

american cars and originality dont go together

back in the muscle car era, very few american cars were available that did not share a chassis and major body styling with another car under a different brand

but yes, they bastardized the name SS with the silverado SS, GTO with the new GTO, and now the charger

atleast the mustang, GT40, and ac cobra havent been disgraced

yeah, but they did make a new cobra, its just as horrible as any other remake, and will probilby never make production because of it. Kinda like the new mustang, I dont like it eaither, but its a better remake then the charger, gto, or cobra.

the new gto is pretty impressive, whats even more impressive is the next years model of it. it my look like a grand am, but it packs a punch

-DamDirtyApes+Dec 30, 2004 - 7:00 AM

it also fell very short of projected sales, which is why they bumped up the displacement and power. they also slightly changed the look

still not going to sell enough

0-50 4.10 sec.
0-60 5.40 sec.
0-70 6.90 sec.
1/4 Mile 13.85 sec.
60-0 Braking 126.00 ft.
Skidpad 0.81 g.
Slalom 62.50 mph

for the 2004 is pretty impiressive, now throw 50 more hp and more tourqe in there and its under 35000.

Dodge Ram...car?

Ghey.

lol...exactly what SS said.

and 4dr sucks for that.


anyways, the new cobra will be my dream car that i will never try to catch >>

whoever said the mustan hasn't been disgraced needs to look at its history
introduced as the original pony car in 64.5
fastback added in 65
body style changed in 67 (sales fell)
added the mach 1 (I think) and boss in 69 (boss btw is the fastest one in the 1/4 miles) and yet sales continued to fall
the more they messed with it the less that were purchased sure it still sells well but if you compare it to the first its still falling short
Also Mustang 2 anyone? And speaking of new the 05's are awful they took a 67 body fast back and morphed it with an audi. Problem is they are bigger then the originals and thus ugly pos's

Heres more concepts:

Here are the "new" 2006 charger concept pictures, which IMO look good.











-Ti

This post has been edited by turboinduction: Dec 30, 2004 - 8:10 PM

now those arent bad, looks like a magnum front end

Now the 2 door looks ok, the frunt end is not the best, and its still got that square look all over, maybe they forgot how to make curves. but then again the old one looked quite a bit like that in some sence, the back window, and trunk, and tails etc.

I said they discrased the mustang, and I really think they did, Its not the power side, all of the cars (GT0, Charger, Mustang, etc.) have great power under the hood, they got that right, but they look fugly to me, the mustang is an atempts to copy the old style but I think they need to re-think that idea, and make a original design for it, with only minor things in common. the GTO is a copy of the grand am with is very sad, but the charger is obviously new, with some things in common, so I'll give them that.

PS: what every program they used to render those images kicks some a-s

This post has been edited by creis: Dec 30, 2004 - 8:29 PM

the new gto doesnt look bad (2k5 model) and the new mustangs look sweeet

Those last couple shots are money. That rear part is looking damn nice. SRT-8, liking the sound of that.